|
 |
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:48dd1ab0$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > If you believe that past advances in cancer treatment were a result of
> > funded research, you *DO* have *some* evidence that "funded and directed
> > research" works and all is not random or comes out of thin air.
> This is a classic Bayesian vs frequentist dilemma. I can't use past
> experience to predict the result of *different* actions in the future.
Unless there is a correlation. Are you claiming there's no commonality
between past research and future research? If funding caused past medical
research to succeed because of a causal chain of relations (ie more money,
more brains, more experiments, more cures), you seem to be saying that such
causal relations cannot be dependent on in the future. Why not? I personally
don't think this very particular point in time is special.
Do you do the same job every day over and over? What evidence, after all, do
you have that if you work 8 hours on a job today, you will succeed? Why even
bother? After all, it was a *different* job you worked on yesterday, and
while hard work enabled you to accomplish that job, by your admission, you
cannot use that experience to generalize that hard work results in
accomplishment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
